My LDL has not changed much, slightly up, but triglycerides are way down (in the 30's) and HDL has gone from 50 to 77. My cardiologist could not believe it.

That comes just from eating saturated fat. I'm not in ketosis normally, my trigs are 50 and HDL-C is 80.

Originally Posted by jmsmall

Of course by more recent data, the LDL-C is not very predictive anyway; Apo-B or LDL-particle count are much better. (The "large fluffy" is also less predictive than particle counts. It's just that on average if you have large fluffy's, you TEND to have lower particle counts.) Non-HDL cholesterol (total minus HDL) is better than LDL as well.

Well, it gets complicated here. The INTERHEART study really likes the ApoB/ApoA ratio. But MESA likes LDL-P. Looks like everyone likes what they measured -- great surprise :-/ -- and yes, LDL-C isn't that predictive. But the new biomarkers don't make that great advances either.

A look at Nora Gedgaudas' website made me very very suspicious of whatever she claims. To put it briefly, she doesn't look credible. Because of that I see no reason to read her book.

To give a specific example, one paper in Drumroll's links (Neuroprotective and disease-modifying effects of the ketogenic diet) explicitly talks about neuroprotective effects of ketones. And sure, ketones help with epilepsy, that's been known for quite a while. But Alzheimer's? The paper quotes another paper (Reger et al. (2004)) which has indicated (I haven't read the paper, just the abstract) that feeding people suffering from AD some fat maybe makes them perform better on cognitive tests in the immediate aftermath of that feeding. It's a VERY long jump from there to saying that going in ketosis will lower your risk of Alzheimer's...

The paper is behind the paywall -- you want to buy me a copy? :-D And I'm not sure what your point is -- do you think the authors lied in the abstract, or what?

My point is that you say someone "doesn't look credible". Well, I guess that's it then. I guess you have proven that she has nothing valuable to say. Try reading her book before you judge.

If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.

It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?

Originally Posted by Paleobird

If you might be capable of opening your mind a tiny crack, I might also suggest the blog of Dr. Georgia Ede called "Diagnosis: Diet". She is a psychiatrist approaching the treatment of many neurological and psychological disorders through the use of ketosis.

It was enough for me to come to the opinion that a sufficiently large number of the things she says sound like excited pseudoscientific babble. She certainly says some correct things as well, but if I have to double-check her every word before believing it, what's the point of reading her?

The paper of her's you are quoting is a "Top Ten" list of the most common mistakes people make when dieting. It is not intended to be an exhaustive scientific study. It's an overview post.

Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.

Right. So even in an overview post she jumps on the alarmist bandwagon, goes on how NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED!, and makes statements that do not pass the laugh test -- that does not bode well for her other writings.

Basically, she wildly exaggerates and cherry-picks facts with what I'd call willful disregard for truth.

Originally Posted by Paleobird

Every one of those points you quoted, about transfats, MSG, and humanity evolving during ice ages, are covered extensively in her book with all the scientific references to make you happy.

LOL. Since we can't debate her, would you, perhaps, care to defend any of those points?

How is this in any way shape or form "alarmist"? The "Trust no one" comment was a joke ffs. A joke on a very real situation that labeling of products as "organic" and "natural" is often misleading.

10) Relying on superficial descriptions such as “natural” or even “organic” on labels to determine whether a food is truly healthy.

Here’s where the Food Industry gets you. They hone in on buzzwords they think will sell their product. Terms like “natural” or “organic” are useless if the product in question is loaded with sugar (organic or not) or if the product contains highly processed ingredients and /or additives. Furthermore, labeling laws designed to supposedly “protect the consumer” are dubious, at best. Learn to read the fine print in the actual nutritional analysis on the back and come to understand the ingredient lists. A good rule of thumb where packaged food is concerned is to follow the edicts of ‘The X-Files’ and “Trust No One”. If it wouldn’t look like food to someone wandering around 40,000 years ago with a loin cloth and a spear, it probably isn’t food for you, either!

9)Relying on the media, your doctor or even conventional nutritionists/dieticians to provide accurate nutritional information
8 ) Believing that junk food “in moderation” is OK.
7) Following “government guidelines” or “The Food Pyramid” for healthy eating.
6) Thinking that “being slim” means you are healthy—using weight as your litmus of “good health”.
5) Using vitamins to “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
4)Believing that exercise can “make up for” unhealthy eating habits.
3) The belief that “genetics is destiny”.
2) The belief that eating healthy means having to give up enjoyment of food, good flavor, fat, dietary cholesterol or animal source foods.
1)The belief or assumption that eating a quality diet is too expensive…or too difficult or complicated to maintain.

Perhaps you would care to refute with facts any of her wildly exaggerated and willfully disregarding of the truth statements. To me this looks like a basic paleo 101 template (dare I even say blueprint).